Paradise Papers demonstrate the scope for abuse in football

The Paradise Papers have revealed plenty of new information, but nothing that can be considered especially revealing. We have found out that Wilbur Ross, a Trump associate, has ties to Vladimir Putin that he had not previously disclosed, leaving him vulnerable to charges of dishonesty and perhaps to future exploitation by his business partners.

We have found out that The Queen does not care enough about people living in poverty to ensure that she pays the tax that almost everyone in Britain does, nor to stop the companies she invests in from making their lives worse with usury. New facts have been uncovered, but what it tells us is no surprise. The same can be said about what we now know about Alisher Usmanov, Farhad Moshiri, and football in general.

It is not clear from the papers what the precise and true nature of the influence and ownership is between the two men, Arsenal and Everton. While the paperwork can be used to make a case that everything is above board, it does not necessarily guarantee that the spirit of the rules over ownership in football has been kept intact. Perhaps, in this instance, everything that took place is entirely moral, but it nevertheless fits in with the modern game’s infestation by, at best, confusing ownership practices. At worst, there is criminality and abuse.

READ MORE: Gossip – Liverpool want David Silva, David Luiz ‘finished at Chelsea’ and more

READ MORE: Wenger owes Sterling an apology for dive claim, rages Shearer

READ MORE: Baines hails ‘inspirational Unsworth’

This is nothing new. There have been crooked, or simply unpopular, owners throughout the history of football, just as there has been corruption in every area of life where you can grift, embezzle and exploit.

Martin Edwards, Manchester United’s former owner, was criticised for his short-sighted use of dividends to enrich himself, and while it might have been legal, it shows that money and football caused friction before and at the start of the Premier League. What has happened now is that as capital has become ever more concentrated, and as the borders to international investment have dropped in Britain particularly, but Europe and the rest of the world in general, the sums are far greater, as is the scope for obfuscation.

Usmanov has a colourful history. He spent six years in jail is Uzbekistan for theft, though the conviction was later struck out. He has ties to Putin through marriage, and he has sacked an editor for criticism of the Russian leader. He is also close to Chelsea owner, Roman Abramovich. Because of the Chelsea owner’s prominence and success at Chelsea, the public have been told more about his past; which includes taking diesel from the Russian state with a ‘fake agreement’ – though he later settled the case. Oligarchs, in general, have not served the Russian people kindly.

This is not the end of it. Paris Saint-Germain are owned by the Qatari state, essentially, and Manchester City have a similar deal with Abu Dhabi. Both these countries have wretched human rights histories and are plainly anti-Semitic.

Barcelona were happy to take money from both China and Qatar as they continued to stand as a vanguard against oppression by the Spanish state. Billions have been poured into these deals to obscure the true actions of these groups, and this is no one-off for City – see the City fans who were happy to repeat the mantra that Thaksin Shinawatra had never been convicted of anything while he owned them.

Of course, they aren’t the only Manchester club to have disquieting owners. The Glazers nearly took United into bankruptcy with their extortionate payment-in-kind loans, and do not even pay lip service to the idea that a club should be part of its community as it drains the club of cash. Most recently, they agreed to set up shop in Saudi Arabia, a country last seen committing war crimes in Yemen, and currently executing factions of its own ruling class, amongst other unpleasantness.

Motivations

When you need to compete with and work with all kinds of states and unsavoury forces in order to keep up with the competition, it is no surprise that some people may choose to use offshore services to keep their motivations and processes secret to gain any kind of edge.

There are two likely outcomes from this revelation, which will serve to only make things worse for football, and indeed, the world. The UK has control over many of the world’s tax havens, and many of those not under its jurisdiction are independent enough to reject any serious reform.

The current government chose to ignore the chance to legislate for reform only last month. Cryptocurrencies demonstrate it is possible keep wealth out of the hands of the state in new ways, even if true regulation is attempted at some point. In other words, unless something radical and unforeseen happens, the methods of stealing from the average person will not be eradicated in any useful way.

Secondly, as Amazon, Google and others who legally but aggressively avoid their own responsibilities to the world, enter the market for broadcast rights, the money flowing through clubs will possibly double in only a few years.

That will serve to make owning and using the clubs more desirable. Lower down the league, the huge amounts of cash going through clubs at the turnstiles make them a wonderful operation to launder funds of less sophisticated criminals and businessmen. Moshiri and Usmanov might not be involved in any of this, but the most recent revelations are only an indication, not the full picture, of the scope for abuse in football.